Live data from Hacker News

Courtney Love does the math (2000)

salon.com

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#21
post #12
post #2

For those turned off by the title TL;DR musician Courtney Love eloquently walks through the math of the recording industry for an artist, details some serious pain and problems in the system, calls out the RIAA for blatant theft of copyright and laws passed in the middle of the night, and explains why she's stepping out of major labels.

...and plagiarizes Steve Albini: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

I don't see it. Can you point out similar passages?

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#22
post #12
post #2

For those turned off by the title TL;DR musician Courtney Love eloquently walks through the math of the recording industry for an artist, details some serious pain and problems in the system, calls out the RIAA for blatant theft of copyright and laws passed in the middle of the night, and explains why she's stepping out of major labels.

...and plagiarizes Steve Albini: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

great finding! thanks!

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#23
My main issue with the maths as outlined here is the costs. I don't dispute that bands spend $500,000 recording an album or making a video but I do dispute that they should.

I have a friend who is a producer / musician who has been in a successful (top 10 singles) band. He'll tell tales of spending a day in the studio sampling a snare drum sound. One day, one snare drum sound. Given the cost of studio time that's just obscene.

Now maybe that's what the highest production standards demand, but I think we need to view the $500,000 album and the $500,000 video as a luxury, not the norm. If those costs come down (and that's perfectly realistic) then the maths potentially looks very different.

The issue here is (surprise surprise) most likely with the record company. After all the better the production the more likely the record is to sell (arguable but it's probably not going to hurt) and the record company don't care whether the money goes to the band or to the studio / producer.

But bands do need to take some responsibility for how THEIR money is spent. In the scenario outlined there is meant to be a scramble for this band. If that's the case then bands need to argue for more control rather than just more money as money seems to be pointless without it.

Makes me think about the contract the Wedding Present signed when they moved to a major label. They gave up a load of cash to have complete control over studio, producer, artwork and so on and if the label didn't like the resulting record, to be able to take it to someone else. More bands need to think in those terms.

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#24
post #12
post #2

For those turned off by the title TL;DR musician Courtney Love eloquently walks through the math of the recording industry for an artist, details some serious pain and problems in the system, calls out the RIAA for blatant theft of copyright and laws passed in the middle of the night, and explains why she's stepping out of major labels.

...and plagiarizes Steve Albini: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

That's a very negative take on it. The second person to object to SOPA wasn't plagiarising the first.

They're making the same point using a similar argument but that's very different to plagiarism.

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#25
post #12
post #2

For those turned off by the title TL;DR musician Courtney Love eloquently walks through the math of the recording industry for an artist, details some serious pain and problems in the system, calls out the RIAA for blatant theft of copyright and laws passed in the middle of the night, and explains why she's stepping out of major labels.

...and plagiarizes Steve Albini: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Either you haven't read both articles or you need to refresh your memory on what plagiarism is, because this isn't even close.

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#26
I strongly believe that the following excerpt from the article directly applies to any line of work including software development:

"I don’t know if an artist can last by meeting the current public taste, the taste from the last quarterly report. I don’t think you can last by following demographics and carefully meeting expectations. I don’t know many lasting works of art that are condescending or deliberately stupid or were created as content.

Don’t tell me I’m a brand. I’m famous and people recognize me, but I can’t look in the mirror and see my brand identity.

Keep talking about brands and you know what you’ll get? Bad clothes. Bad hair. Bad books. Bad movies. And bad records. And bankrupt businesses. Rides that were fun for a year with no employee loyalty but everyone got rich fucking you. Who wants that? The answer is purity. We can afford it. Let’s go find it again while we can."

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#28
Wouldn't it be wonderful if a huge artist like Adele ditched her current label and just went with a Humble Bundle style one? Imagine paying what you want for an album and allocating the money between artist, hosting, and the artist's favourite charities. It would be a lovely way to cut out these dinosauric middlemen.

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#29
Last time I read this article, I remember my perspective of Courtney Love shifted from "Possible Murder Suspect Courtney" to "Underdog Courtney" in only a few minutes. I found the psychology of it pretty fascinating.

At the time of writing, Napster was still very much in consciousness, so, if you've become famous for something negative, get known for something people care about. She should have hammered at this drum a little louder and for a lot longer.

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#30

My main issue with the maths as outlined here is the costs. I don't dispute that bands spend $500,000 recording an album or making a video but I do dispute that they should. I have a friend who is a producer / musician who has been in a successful (top 10 singles) band. He'll tell tales of spending a day in the studio sampling a snare drum sound. One day, one snare drum sound. Given the cost of studio time that's jus…

My indie band's self-produced CD cost us only $16K in 2001 (we were signed to a small label), but to be completely candid, we cut corners all over the place: 1) We dropped two tracks because the live lay down (which we used as the base for all overdubs and re-tracking) just didn't click. We recorded live over three days and we just got burnt out. If we had been signed to a major, I would have appreciated the ability to spend a whole day on each track until the vibe felt right. 2) Overdubs and re-tracking were done quickly and efficiently, but again, felt rushed in order to save money. 3) Multi-tracked vocals, guitars and percussion were sparse. We had played these songs for years (true for most "debut" albums) and it was hard to experiment in the studio without feeling we were going broke. Add a jangly 12 string playing double stops ping-ponging in stereo over the changes? Sounds great we'd tell the engineer, but we can't afford it. 4) Mixing (which took 50% of the total studio time) was painful. The permutations -- even considering the sparse tracks we had -- all begin to sound the same after a while. Ideally I'd like at least a week to mix each song: producing variations that we could collectively listen, get used to, and then debate.

So, although 500K sounds like a lot, I think the studio wants to rightfully allow the artist enough freedom to track, experiment, and mix without worrying about hitting their budget ceiling.

Oh, shameless link to our CD: http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/future-perfect/id4478315

Post reply on HN